The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (SRP) met at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) on December 9-11, 2009 to discuss the areas of current and future research targeted by the Space Radiation Program Element (SRPE) of the Human Research Program (HRP). Using evidence-based knowledge as a background for identified risks to astronaut health and performance, NASA had identified gaps in knowledge to address those risks. Ongoing and proposed tasks were presented to address the gaps. The charge to the Space Radiation SRP was to review the gaps, evaluate whether the tasks addressed these gaps and to make recommendations to NASA s HRP Science Management Office regarding the SRP's review. The SRP was requested to evaluate the practicality of the proposed efforts in light of the demands placed on the HRP. Several presentations were made to the SRP during the site visit and the SRP spent sufficient time to address the SRP charge. The SRP made a final debriefing to the HRP Program Scientist, Dr. John B. Charles, on December 11, 2009. The SRP noted that current SRPE strategy is properly science-based and views this as the best assurance of the likelihood that answers to the questions posed as gaps in knowledge can be found, that the uncertainty in risk estimates can be reduced, and that a solid, cost-effective approach to risk reduction solutions is being developed. The current approach of the SRPE, based on the use of carefully focused research solicitations, requiring thorough peer-review and approaches demonstrated to be on the path to answering the NASA strategic questions, addressed to a broad extramural community of qualified scientists, optimally positioned to take advantage of serendipitous discoveries and to leverage scientific advances made elsewhere, is sound and appropriate. The SRP viewed with concern statements by HRP implying that the only science legitimately deserving support should be "applied" or, in some instances that the very term "research" might be frowned upon. We understand the desire of management to ensure that research stay focused on mission objectives, but the terms used are code words fraught with different meaning for scientists. Such expressions, taken at face value, convey a profoundly flawed view of science, can easily lead down counterproductive paths, and have the potential to irretrievably corrupt NASA requirements. The SRP understands and endorses the mandate to keep research efforts focused on the mission needs. However, thoughtful application of knowledge gained by understanding the mechanisms and pathways of biological effects cannot be replaced.